What to know about 'BernieCare,' Sanders' health overhaul

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/know-berniecare-sanders-health-overhaul-134134451.html

So he wants to cause a market crash, add more to the debt, and increase the uninsured. I mean then again, he can cover it, I mean he knows where to get the 18 to 19 trillion to pay for it, Im sure hell tell us eventually, hey, maybe hell get Mexico or Europe to pay for it. I mean other countries are so great, thats why all the immigrants go over to the....wait.

I call this more like Asylum Care. Giving you various numbers to instituions you can send Bernie Sanders to for this idea that had no planning or a safety net at all.

 

Sounds like the same health care plan Trump wants.

 

Thanks to Obama and the liberal "everything you want is an entitlement" policy we have a hundred million clueless slackers who now truly believe that something like health care is actually a right.

How absurd is that?

I mean you really have to marvel at the degree of population control that was utilized to create that shift in perception.

For those of us who don't wade in shallow end of the intellectual pool ...we're really quite impressed with the strategy.

The downside is that now every politician will have to go out and lie to people about giving them something for free that cant be paid for.

But hey, 60 some odd million dolts fell for something as inane and void of substance as "hope & change".

 

Actually it could be paid for, but they'd have to stop wasting money. The money is already there, they just waste it. 1.5 mil on studies for why lesbians are fat, several million on a loser software to design the healthcare, doesn't work, so they give him another million to fix it. Cigarette tax money that no one knows wher it goes. On and on, the waste is enormous. Yet they want to raise taxes to cover their waste. The wealthiest area is D.C., district of criminals.

 

I question whether it could be paid for. Vermont, Bernie's own state, proposed a single payer plan and ultimately dropped it because they couldn't make the finances work. If you can't make it work in a high income, small, wealthy state that's one of the most left leaning in the nation, then I'm unclear how it could work nationwide without all of those advantages.

 

My point is, if the dems can't manage what they have now, why should they be allowed to steal more of peoples' money? Where does it end? When is it enough?

 

And yet universal health care works in all other developed western countries.

 

The USA spends twice the costs and gets a lower standard of car than much of Europe and Canada.

We already the trillions to pay for, given that nearly half of the costs for medical care are complete wasted by the massive bonuses to the boondoggle of spending money for the huge health insurance ripoff of 40 Million dollar CEOs and their associated bloated staffs, pharmacol companies, and so much more..

http://www.flymedi.com/guide/knee-replacement-cost-around-the-world/

 

Doug, you have a short memory as you've been called to the carpet before with statistics from Europe showing their systems are BANKRUPT. Perhaps you should start archiving the answers given to you here to casually refer to at your leisure when complex topics arise as it does get tedious correcting you on these matters.

 

It looks like countries that have universal coverage are far from broke

Government debt as % of GDP:
Canada 59% (universal healthcare)
Germany 69% (the world's oldest universal system)
France 86% (has the world's best system according to WHO)
Sweden 10% (universal healthcare)
Norway 26% (universal healthcare)
US 80%

 

Link your BS source(s) and it better not be Media Matters.

 

Health care costs as percent of GDP:
Canada 10.9% (universal healthcare)
Germany 11.3% (the world's oldest universal system)
France 11.7% (has the world's best system according to WHO)
Sweden 9.7% (universal healthcare)
Norway 9.6% (universal healthcare)
US 17.1%

Source

 

Health care costs per capita:
Canada $5,718 (universal healthcare)
Germany $5,006 (the world's oldest universal system)
France $4,864 (has the world's best system according to WHO)
Sweden $5,680 (universal healthcare)
Norway $9,715 (universal healthcare)
US $9,146

Source

 

Link your own sources:

Provide a link with those statistics showing Europe's health care systems are bankrupt.

 

So shall it be written, so shall it be done. Bookmark 'em.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system-is-going-broke

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...s-nhs-needs-political-therapy/article/2536520

https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/u...em_often_cited_as_a_model_by_liberals_is_on_/

 

These articles are talking about systems that are much cheaper than the US. So they're hardly bankrupt. And you posted a blog?

Post statistics showing Europe's healtcare systems are bankrupt.

 

That figure of $9,146 cost is particularly poignant because that near highest cost of the USA system is lowered because a significant number of the uninsured get minimal of nonexistent care if because the uninsured do not get even minimal care. Many simply get a triage of just enough care to leave the hospital. No pacemakers, hip replacements, many kinds of cancel and so much more are often not offered.

Universal Health means that EVERYONE gets everyone insure, often to a higher level than the USA.

 

Can you read French & German?

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/st...fuer-deutsches-gesundheitswesen-a-950847.html

http://www.humanite.fr/le-gouvernement-organise-t-il-la-faillite-de-notre-systeme-de-sante-520266

 

You posted a right-wing blog.

Post statistics showing Europe's healthtcare systems are bankrupt. You said they've been posted before so let's see them.

 

I just realized you posted a blog entry from 2009! A blog predicting the demise of the 132 year old German universal healthcare system, which is still going strong by the way.

 

http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/994000153.pdf

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/artic...Gesundheitswesen-ist-das-Geld-nicht-wert.html

 

Sheesh, post statistics, and not 15 year old French language ones, or obscure conservative German newspapers, that shows that European systems are bankrupt.

Here is what you claimed:

Post those statistics.

 

The real problem in the US is the unavailability of preventative care for many people who can't afford regular doctor visits. The result is that care is delivered at its most expensive acute stage rather than in a preventative manner where cost is lowest.

That's why France does such a good job of keeping costs down while delivering good outcomes and a nice long life expectancy.

 

How are you coming with the statistics for the above?

So far you've posted:
1. Something from Blumberg about one European country with lower costs than the US.
2. Something from the Examiner about one other European country with lower costs than the US.
3. A blog entry ffs and from 2009 yet.
4. Something in German.
5. Something in French.
6. Something 16 years old*, in French. (*if it's talking about the bankruptcy of European health care systems they sure are taking their sweet time about it)
7. Something else in German, from an obscure right wing German newspaper.

But no statistics you said you had that to use your words were "statistics from Europe showing their systems are BANKRUPT"

Post those statistics please, for all 23 European countries with universal health care.

 

A state-level program like Vermont was proposing is at a disadvantage relative to reforms at the federal level. Vermont's program would not have included people with self-insured employer-based coverage (about a quarter of the state's population) since federal law protects those plans from state interference, nor would it have applied to the ~13% of its population enrolled in Medicare.

One of the selling points of a single-payer model is that it streamlines a fragmented system and repurposes existing health care funds that are already in the system. Neither of these could've been completely realized by Vermont's proposed program, which is a big part of the reason it couldn't go forward.